Indeed, for clarity, listen to what Dominic tells the audience at Nudgestock.....he's saying 1.5bn ads were seen by their target audience, this is confirmed in his blogs. Even accounting for discrepancies between monitoring systems, that's quite a difference from Facebook's 169m. pic.twitter.com/Tkzy6ESLco

Yes and what people forget (or conveniently ignore) is that social media is a massive echo chamber for anti brexit, ‘progressive’ left thinking. Anyone posting anything remotely pro brexit or anything right of Mao gets lynched and publically shamed. So anyone on Twitter and Facebook is inherently exposed to anti brexit rhetoric all day every day from people like Gary lineker and Carole codswallop.

The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

Yes and what people forget (or conveniently ignore) is that social media is a massive echo chamber for anti brexit, ‘progressive’ left thinking. Anyone posting anything remotely pro brexit or anything right of Mao gets lynched and publically shamed. So anyone on Twitter and Facebook is inherently exposed to anti brexit rhetoric all day every day from people like Gary lineker and Carole codswallop.

Depends on who people follow though doesn't it? There'll be echo chambers for all views - plenty of pro-Brexit stuff out there too.

The objective of these campaigns is not only to encourage people to vote Leave, but also to discourage natural Remain voters from actually going to the polls.

Firstly no I didn’t, I very rarely do.

And fourthly, why would an advert about a polar bear stop a passionate europhile to not go out to the polling station?

And C) Universal suffrage is a wonderful thing that people fought and died for for centuries. But it also creates the situation that a individual that takes the time to think about their vote and come to a reasoned conclusion would have the same voting power as someone who is easily influenced by a catchy slogan, exaggerated or fake news or a sound bite. Now we have two options:

F) disenfranchise the stupid and make people take a competency test before gaining a license to vote to ensure that all voters are incredibly informed and know precisely every aspect of what they are voting for in great detail.

Or 2) accept the inherent flaws in allowing everyone the vote, because it’s the right thing to do.

The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

And fourthly, why would an advert about a polar bear stop a passionate europhile to not go out to the polling station?

And C) Universal suffrage is a wonderful thing that people fought and died for for centuries. But it also creates the situation that a individual that takes the time to think about their vote and come to a reasoned conclusion would have the same voting power as someone who is easily influenced by a catchy slogan, exaggerated or fake news or a sound bite. Now we have two options:

F) disenfranchise the stupid and make people take a competency test before gaining a license to vote to ensure that all voters are incredibly informed and know precisely every aspect of what they are voting for in great detail.

Or 2) accept the inherent flaws in allowing everyone the vote, because it’s the right thing to do.

Wrong. The answer is training (more so than education) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Difference Between Rationality and Intelligence By DAVID Z. HAMBRICK and ALEXANDER P. BURGOYNE

NYT, SEPT. 16, 2016

ARE you intelligent — or rational? The question may sound redundant, but in recent years researchers have demonstrated just how distinct those two cognitive attributes actually are.

It all started in the early 1970s, when the psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky conducted an influential series of experiments showing that all of us, even highly intelligent people, are prone to irrationality. Across a wide range of scenarios, the experiments revealed, people tend to make decisions based on intuition rather than reason.

In one study, Professors Kahneman and Tversky had people read the following personality sketch for a woman named Linda: “Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken and very bright. She majored in philosophy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and social justice, and also participated in antinuclear demonstrations.” Then they asked the subjects which was more probable: (A) Linda is a bank teller or (B) Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement. Eighty-five percent of the subjects chose B, even though logically speaking, A is more probable. (All feminist bank tellers are bank tellers, though some bank tellers may not be feminists.)

In the Linda problem, we fall prey to the conjunction fallacy — the belief that the co-occurrence of two events is more likely than the occurrence of one of the events. In other cases, we ignore information about the prevalence of events when judging their likelihood. We fail to consider alternative explanations. We evaluate evidence in a manner consistent with our prior beliefs. And so on. Humans, it seems, are fundamentally irrational.

But starting in the late 1990s, researchers began to add a significant wrinkle to that view. As the psychologist Keith Stanovich and others observed, even the Kahneman and Tversky data show that some people are highly rational. In other words, there are individual differences in rationality, even if we all face cognitive challenges in being rational. So who are these more rational people? Presumably, the more intelligent people, right?

Wrong. In a series of studies, Professor Stanovich and colleagues had large samples of subjects (usually several hundred) complete judgment tests like the Linda problem, as well as an I.Q. test. The major finding was that irrationality — or what Professor Stanovich called “dysrationalia” — correlates relatively weakly with I.Q. A person with a high I.Q. is about as likely to suffer from dysrationalia as a person with a low I.Q. In a 2008 study, Professor Stanovich and colleagues gave subjects the Linda problem and found that those with a high I.Q. were, if anything, more prone to the conjunction fallacy.

Based on this evidence, Professor Stanovich and colleagues have introduced the concept of the rationality quotient, or R.Q. If an I.Q. test measures something like raw intellectual horsepower (abstract reasoning and verbal ability), a test of R.Q. would measure the propensity for reflective thought — stepping back from your own thinking and correcting its faulty tendencies.

There is also now evidence that rationality, unlike intelligence, can be improved through training. In a pair of studies published last year in Policy Insights From the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, the psychologist Carey Morewedge and colleagues had subjects (more than 200 in each study) complete a test to assess their susceptibility to various decision-making biases. Then, some of the subjects watched a video about decision-making bias, while others played an interactive computer game designed to decrease bias via simulations of real-world decision making.

In the interactive games, following each simulation, a review gave the subjects instruction on specific decision-making biases and individualized feedback on their performance. Immediately after watching the video or receiving the computer training, and then again after two months, the subjects took a different version of the decision-making test.

Professor Morewedge and colleagues found that the computer training led to statistically large and enduring decreases in decision-making bias. In other words, the subjects were considerably less biased after training, even after two months. The decreases were larger for the subjects who received the computer training than for those who received the video training (though decreases were also sizable for the latter group). While there is scant evidence that any sort of “brain training” has any real-world impact on intelligence, it may well be possible to train people to be more rational in their decision making.

It is, of course, unrealistic to think that we will ever live in a world where everyone is completely rational. But by developing tests to identify the most rational among us, and by offering training programs to decrease irrationality in the rest of us, scientific researchers can nudge society in that direction.

David Z. Hambrick is a professor in the psychology department at Michigan State University, where Alexander P. Burgoyne is a graduate student.

And fourthly, why would an advert about a polar bear stop a passionate europhile to not go out to the polling station?

And C) Universal suffrage is a wonderful thing that people fought and died for for centuries. But it also creates the situation that a individual that takes the time to think about their vote and come to a reasoned conclusion would have the same voting power as someone who is easily influenced by a catchy slogan, exaggerated or fake news or a sound bite. Now we have two options:

F) disenfranchise the stupid and make people take a competency test before gaining a license to vote to ensure that all voters are incredibly informed and know precisely every aspect of what they are voting for in great detail.

Or 2) accept the inherent flaws in allowing everyone the vote, because it’s the right thing to do.

Very few people are passionate Europhiles in the same way very few nutters are rabid brexiteers.

If the Uk population was really determined to leave the EU, ample opportunity existed to elect a UKIP government in several general elections. We'd have been out without the need for a referendum.

Equally if the majority were determined to remain, Lib dems would have won the last GE.

Neither came close, which reflects that for most people its not really a major issue (until there ae empty shelves in the shops).

In a binary referendum many people may not be concerned either way, so with a small margin for victory, a concerted "dark" campaign continuing for 4 days, whilst your opposition has suspended campaigning could well have swung the result.

All evidence is that those with lower educational attainment were more likely to vote leave.

We have representative democracy (with its flaws) rather than direct democracy (with its flaws) for a reason

Wrong. The answer is training (more so than education) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Difference Between Rationality and Intelligence By DAVID Z. HAMBRICK and ALEXANDER P. BURGOYNE

NYT, SEPT. 16, 2016

ARE you intelligent — or rational? The question may sound redundant, but in recent years researchers have demonstrated just how distinct those two cognitive attributes actually are.

It all started in the early 1970s, when the psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky conducted an influential series of experiments showing that all of us, even highly intelligent people, are prone to irrationality. Across a wide range of scenarios, the experiments revealed, people tend to make decisions based on intuition rather than reason.

In one study, Professors Kahneman and Tversky had people read the following personality sketch for a woman named Linda: “Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken and very bright. She majored in philosophy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and social justice, and also participated in antinuclear demonstrations.” Then they asked the subjects which was more probable: (A) Linda is a bank teller or (B) Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement. Eighty-five percent of the subjects chose B, even though logically speaking, A is more probable. (All feminist bank tellers are bank tellers, though some bank tellers may not be feminists.)

In the Linda problem, we fall prey to the conjunction fallacy — the belief that the co-occurrence of two events is more likely than the occurrence of one of the events. In other cases, we ignore information about the prevalence of events when judging their likelihood. We fail to consider alternative explanations. We evaluate evidence in a manner consistent with our prior beliefs. And so on. Humans, it seems, are fundamentally irrational.

But starting in the late 1990s, researchers began to add a significant wrinkle to that view. As the psychologist Keith Stanovich and others observed, even the Kahneman and Tversky data show that some people are highly rational. In other words, there are individual differences in rationality, even if we all face cognitive challenges in being rational. So who are these more rational people? Presumably, the more intelligent people, right?

Wrong. In a series of studies, Professor Stanovich and colleagues had large samples of subjects (usually several hundred) complete judgment tests like the Linda problem, as well as an I.Q. test. The major finding was that irrationality — or what Professor Stanovich called “dysrationalia” — correlates relatively weakly with I.Q. A person with a high I.Q. is about as likely to suffer from dysrationalia as a person with a low I.Q. In a 2008 study, Professor Stanovich and colleagues gave subjects the Linda problem and found that those with a high I.Q. were, if anything, more prone to the conjunction fallacy.

Based on this evidence, Professor Stanovich and colleagues have introduced the concept of the rationality quotient, or R.Q. If an I.Q. test measures something like raw intellectual horsepower (abstract reasoning and verbal ability), a test of R.Q. would measure the propensity for reflective thought — stepping back from your own thinking and correcting its faulty tendencies.

There is also now evidence that rationality, unlike intelligence, can be improved through training. In a pair of studies published last year in Policy Insights From the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, the psychologist Carey Morewedge and colleagues had subjects (more than 200 in each study) complete a test to assess their susceptibility to various decision-making biases. Then, some of the subjects watched a video about decision-making bias, while others played an interactive computer game designed to decrease bias via simulations of real-world decision making.

In the interactive games, following each simulation, a review gave the subjects instruction on specific decision-making biases and individualized feedback on their performance. Immediately after watching the video or receiving the computer training, and then again after two months, the subjects took a different version of the decision-making test.

Professor Morewedge and colleagues found that the computer training led to statistically large and enduring decreases in decision-making bias. In other words, the subjects were considerably less biased after training, even after two months. The decreases were larger for the subjects who received the computer training than for those who received the video training (though decreases were also sizable for the latter group). While there is scant evidence that any sort of “brain training” has any real-world impact on intelligence, it may well be possible to train people to be more rational in their decision making.

It is, of course, unrealistic to think that we will ever live in a world where everyone is completely rational. But by developing tests to identify the most rational among us, and by offering training programs to decrease irrationality in the rest of us, scientific researchers can nudge society in that direction.

David Z. Hambrick is a professor in the psychology department at Michigan State University, where Alexander P. Burgoyne is a graduate student.

Come on Shaky mun put the google search down for a moment.

I want to hear your opinion, not David Z Hambricks and Alexander P Burgoyne’s.

The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

If forced I would guess the answer is nothing based on your comment, so I invite you to take a look at the following article.

It is mainly about the 2016 US election but there are some striking parallels with the Leave campaign in the techniques used like disinformation and propaganda spread primarily via social media, as well as some of the players involved like Cambridge Analytica, Russian Military intelligence, etc. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Connecting the Dots: Political Microtargeting and the Russia Investigation By Kate Brannen Friday, May 19, 2017 at 1:02 PM

You keep banging on about this as if there was none of this sort of thing from pro remain all over social media, and there absolutely was. The difference is Brexiters won and have got on with their lives. Remainers have gone through everything with a fine tooth comb because they just can’t let it go.

Very few people are passionate Europhiles in the same way very few nutters are rabid brexiteers.

If the Uk population was really determined to leave the EU, ample opportunity existed to elect a UKIP government in several general elections. We'd have been out without the need for a referendum.

Equally if the majority were determined to remain, Lib dems would have won the last GE.

Neither came close, which reflects that for most people its not really a major issue (until there ae empty shelves in the shops).

In a binary referendum many people may not be concerned either way, so with a small margin for victory, a concerted "dark" campaign continuing for 4 days, whilst your opposition has suspended campaigning could well have swung the result.

All evidence is that those with lower educational attainment were more likely to vote leave.

We have representative democracy (with its flaws) rather than direct democracy (with its flaws) for a reason

We have both because there are some issues that can’t be resolved with a G.E.

The SNP or UKIP would never be able to form a government. UKIP got over four million votes but only one seat.

Direct democracy has its uses and more people turned out for this than most U.K. elections in history so it certainly resonated with people.

If it is true that “thick” people voted leave (it almost certainly isn’t) then are you suggesting we take the vote away from thick people?

The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

In my Evernote app which I use partly as an article and reference database I can tag and cross-index/search against things I am interested in or need to research.

There are dedicated browser add-ons you can use to clip web content directly in to Evernote, but I have been clipping paper articles since the late 80s and scanning and digitising then since the late 90s, because research is one of the main things I do.

I'll tell you I have also spent many man weeks doing desk research at places like the Science Reference Library in Chancery Lane and the City Business Library in London Wall, and if you know what you are doing Google is an absolute godsend.

Yes and what people forget (or conveniently ignore) is that social media is a massive echo chamber for anti brexit, ‘progressive’ left thinking. Anyone posting anything remotely pro brexit or anything right of Mao gets lynched and publically shamed. So anyone on Twitter and Facebook is inherently exposed to anti brexit rhetoric all day every day from people like Gary lineker and Carole codswallop.

That’s nonsense. Twitter is exactly what you want it to be. If you want to make it a left wing echo chamber and only see tweets from those you agree with that’s easy to do. It’s just as easy to fill your timeline with pro-Brexit, right wing or far right wing types as well if that’s your bag.

That’s nonsense. Twitter is exactly what you want it to be. If you want to make it a left wing echo chamber and only see tweets from those you agree with that’s easy to do. It’s just as easy to fill your timeline with pro-Brexit, right wing or far right wing types as well if that’s your bag.

And yet remainers will have you believe only people who voted leave can and do get influenced by it.

That’s nonsense. Twitter is exactly what you want it to be. If you want to make it a left wing echo chamber and only see tweets from those you agree with that’s easy to do. It’s just as easy to fill your timeline with pro-Brexit, right wing or far right wing types as well if that’s your bag.

Yep

I deliberately follow people with a radically different lifestyle or politics.

A message from the former Chief of Staff at the DExEU; suck it up, boys.

I worked to make the best out of Brexit for more than a year and it is now very far beyond clear that it is an abject national humiliation. MPs and peers who are voting to proceed are acting against the national interest. A referendum with an option to remain is now inevitable

A message from the former Chief of Staff at the DExEU; suck it up, boys.

I worked to make the best out of Brexit for more than a year and it is now very far beyond clear that it is an abject national humiliation. MPs and peers who are voting to proceed are acting against the national interest. A referendum with an option to remain is now inevitable